In January, Columbia's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund launched the Silencing Science Tracker (SST). As its name suggests, the SST records government attempts to prevent or restrict scientific research, education, or discussion since the November 2016 election. Initially, the SST only recorded anti-science behavior within the federal government, of which we have 161 examples. That does not, however, reflect the full extent of the "war on science" as numerous anti-science actions are also being taken by state and local governments. To increase awareness of those actions, we have expanded the SST, adding state and local government attempts to censor, misrepresent, or otherwise stifle science.
As of Monday, September 24, the expanded SST lists 257 anti-science actions taken by government actors since the November 2016 election. Of those actions, 63 percent (161) were taken by the federal government, and 37 percent (96) by state and local governments. Unsurprisingly, many of the state and local government actions are concentrated in just a handful of areas, which have a long-history of anti-science behavior. Florida leads the way with 10 entries, followed by Texas and Wisconsin with 7 each, and then Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Oklahoma with 5 each. It would, however, be a mistake to think that anti-science behavior is limited to a small number of "rogue" states. On the contrary, such behavior has occurred in at least 38 states since November 2016, including many often thought of as leaders on scientific issues, such as California and Vermont.
At both the state and federal levels, much anti-science behavior has centered on climate change, with 70 percent of all SST entries targeting climate scientists.
The entries fall into seven broad categories. The "government censorship" category currently includes the most entries, accounting for approximately 29 percent of the total. Many of the entries relate to changes to government websites to remove references to "climate change" (see here for an example). Of late, however, this has been far more common within the federal government than at the state level. (We have only identified one example—in Wisconsin—of references to "climate change" being removed from state websites since November 2016.) However, state governments have sought to restrict access to information about climate change in other ways, including through "interference with education," which accounts for over 10 percent of all SST entries. Both state and federal government actors also commonly engage in "bias and misrepresentation," with many suggesting that climate change is a "hoax," and/or questioning its causes and effects.
Unfortunately, there is little indication that these attacks on science will subside in the near future. For as long as they occur, we will record them in the SST.
Explore further: US should take steps to manage costly climate risks: report